slowman;

You had asked for input from one of two groups -- so here is mine as a born again Christian:

My vote in this election was determined by a Christian worldview which encompasses several dimensions including but not limited to morals. In fact I would respectfully submit that trying to analyze election results one-dimensionally, i.e. in terms of moral issues alone, will be a struggle as a lot of people I know tend to view the world through several prisms such as economics, justice, education, environment, compassion, morals etc. There are competing worldviews to be sure....some have argued that in fact atheism, secular humanism, and scientific materiliasm compete directly with a religious worldviews, but tend to mask this fact under the guise of objectivity. But I am not here to argue the philosophical case; I can only state my thought process which is that a Christian worldview most consistenly explains in a comprehensive and integrated fashion my experience that creation, consciousness, truth, morals, altruism, love, and God exist as both as concepts and in day-to-day practice. Stated somewhat differently, I personally find that a worldview of say scientific materilism does a pretty poor job of beginning to explain why morals even exist, much less why even little children without any religious indoctrination can easily grasp the basic concepts of right and wrong.

I also respectfully would ask your clarification term of fundamentalist. Do you mean this as the label is conventional applied in the media, as in anti-intellectual? I would argue unabashedly for the use our reasoning abilities combined with our direct experience. I would also like to make this observation -- with apologies to Einstien -- that Christians suddenly didn't become more conservative on the issues this particular election. Rather, Einstien's independent observer might say that in the last 40 years secular thinking drifted far enough to the Left to give the *relative* appearance that the Right became more moral when in point of fact it has remained pretty much where its always been.

So to wrap us this initial post and answer your question; did Bush and the Republicans win my vote by representing my worldview? -- well, at best they align with some of the basic concepts of a Christian worldview. Does that constitute a religious agenda? I don't think so becase you will also find that within that worldview we all have individual understandings on given issues of what Jesus and the Bible teach as a whole.

-- When I listened to the republicans I heard a clear message. I didn't agree with all of it but it was the same everyday. I have to respect a person or group that sticks to their beliefs.

Interesting points of view, and I think there are MANY who feel as you do. For me, the message coming out of the Bush campaign is just one of the reasons I did NOT vote for the President. Most of it conflicted with the other information I was receiving from the other news outlets.

Somewhere along the line George W Bush lost credibility with me and I think I can honestly say it was during his campaign with Al Gore before he even became President. Like many I rallied around him during the 9/11 aftermath, but it didn't last long because of his use of fear to control the country and to get us behind his agenda with Iraq. I did place some faith in the President regarding the Iraq war however I was very concerned with the isolationist nature in which our foreign policy was being conducted. The fact that we found no WMDs and really had no plan to stabilize the country only made me more skeptical of the Bush Administration. Any trust I had was completely gone at this point and IMO they have not owned up to their mistakes and have shown no ability to re-assess a situation when new facts come out.

In reality though, there were many other reasons I would not have voted for Bush including his gay marriage stance, abysmal environmental record, and the fiscal irresponsibility shown in the first term.

"the difference to me is that republicans appear more hawkish, and in so doing appear tougher. so do you really think the republican's message was clearer? and that they have been true to their word and unwavering in their message? or do you like the republicans because you think they'll be tougher?"

I believe that W's lack of desire or inability to see "nuance" with respect to the war is a good thing. I think Kerry was scarred by his Viet Nam experiences, in uniform and out. As a result, I truly do not believe he will be as effective as W.

I think you only have to look at the voting percentages in Utah to see where the so called moral values vote went. In this case I think it is safe to say that morman values more closely match Bush's campaign than Kerry's.

As one who voted Bush, but not necessarily due to moral values, here is how I see the difference: Bush is stronger anti-abortion. Bush is stronger anti-gay marriage. Hollywood hates Bush big time, and not many relate Hollywood to high moral values these days. Bush is more of a traditional "family man."

Is it THE most important thing? Long term I would say yes. Our country is becoming a nation raised to MTV values. You only have to look at the economic success of the Koreans in the last 10 years to see why they are on the rise while high paying jobs in the US are continually off-shored. I use Koreans as an example because I have first hand experience with their culture. Their kids out study our kids 10 to 1. Our schools are a joke to them. Hyundai has moved from being a new car company to the US with the worst quality, to second only to Lexus in quality and customer satisfaction, at 1/3rd the price. Economically we are going to get our asses kicked, and we deserve it. Their kids are up at 5:30am getting tutored in English, ours are watching MTV until midnight learning how to act promiscuous and beligerant. Yes, Koreans have TV's, but every single show is the equivalent of a "G" rating. It used to be the same way in the US, but we have let it go. We've let lower moral values dominate, and it's going to cost us in every way imaginable.

-- As one who voted Bush, but not necessarily due to moral values, here is how I see the difference: Bush is stronger anti-abortion. Bush is stronger anti-gay marriage. Hollywood hates Bush big time, and not many relate Hollywood to high moral values these days. Bush is more of a traditional "family man."

I'm interested in how you can cite hollywood as a group of people without high moral values, but can overlook the moral values it takes to send American men and women to war when we didn't have concrete evidence of an imminent threat to harm us. I fail to understand how many can hold the moral values of anti-abortion/anti-stem cell yet there seems to be no outrage about sending young kids to die in a war.

Someone help me understand this?

-- Is it THE most important thing? Long term I would say yes. Our country is becoming a nation raised to MTV values.

I agree this is a problem, but how is voting for Bush going to change family values around our nation? Family values come from the family, not from our government! There are many things contributing to the degradation of the family, but abortion, gay marriage, and stem cells aren't on the list.

How will your vote for President Bush change family values around the nation?

Kerry embraced Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, commented how Hollywood reflected the values of America, and never denounced the serious hatred problems in his party. He badly needed a Sister Solja (sp?) moment.

So he is not a hater, he simply goes along with them, embraces them, and wanted to ride their hatred into the Whitehouse. It is not as bad as being a hater oneself, but it gets pretty close.

Well, in a literal sense, you are right. I guess I didn't interpret his no nation building remark that way. I interpreted in to mean no Somalias, Kosovos or Haitis. He hasn't done those kinds of operations.

Absent 9/11, there almost certainly would have been no Iraq war. The violation of the Peace Treaty that you mentioned was one of the reasons for the invasion, but it was way down the list and would never have been sufficient by itself in a pre 9/11 world.

If you want to bash him for violating a campaign promise, you are on solid ground with Campaign Finance Reform. He promised to veto that disaster, and he signed it instead. Second worse thing he ever did.

Not when the majority of the constituency shares that tradition.

So why is it that the states that voted for Bush have the highest divorce rates? Isn't marriage one of those moral value issues? Is this a case of "do as I say, not as I do"?

The Republican party marketed itself (rightly or wrongly) as the keepers of the moral flame. By implication, that made the Democratic party the sinners.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Since when Science's job was to explain moral values and right and wrong??

Please note that I am not comparing the Republicans with the Nazis.

Here are two quotes from Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister during the Third Reich:

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

" ...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."

Also, I don't think that choosing a President based on who would make a better babysitter is the right way to go.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

If you aren't comparing Republicans to Nazis, than why are you using quotes from a key player of the Nazi party?

because they apply anyway. not 100% of what was said or done by every single nazi was completely wrong. Hitler came up with the idea of having a car for everyone: the volkswagen (literally the car of the people), should everyone stop buying them? They restored the economy of the Germany (which is why they got the initial support of the people) when the Allies had put Germany in the toilets after their capitulation after WWI...

anyway, these quotes make a lot of sense...

Understood. Thanks for the clarification.

The Republican party clearly and simply stated their platform in this election. The citizens of the United States knew where the candidate stood and how this person was going to govern for the next 4 years.

More than anything citizens want clarity and a sense of direction. This was Bush's strongpoint and simple message that ulitimately won him the election.

Because I find the parallel in their methods of communication to be chilling, not because their underlying principles are the same or even similar: of course they are not. Goebbels was a master at convincing the people, and a truly evil person, and I saw (in the debates, in the announcements by White House spokespersons, etc.) the same methodology used over and over again by the Republican party: repeat, repeat, repeat. Cheney may not have explicitly said "Iraq was behind 9/11", but he and others continually used "Iraq" and "9/11" and "terrorism" in the same sentence.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

We live in an age and time where there are threats to our security and well being. This was evidenced by 9/11.

We can no longer sit back and wait for the enemy to come to us. Like it or not, that is the world we live. We can no longer pretend these threats don't affect us. This message is repeated time and time again because it's a serious issue that people need to be reminded.

Dan,

The answer "Moral Values" was a polling error.

Most people are going to choose moral values if given a choice simply because they don't want to think that they didn't choose moral values as the reason for their vote. It is the answer that makes them feel good about themselves.

I agree with you. What are "moral values"? I live in Ohio so I am fairly certain that my moral values are different than those of people living in California, New York or the deep south. Not that any of us are wrong, we all just look at this wide wonderful world differently and that is what makes this such a wonderful country.

Cheney most often asserts that al-qaeda had ties to Saddam, but there are a few quotes were he ties Saddam to 9/11.

This is from http://bushoniraq.com/cheney1.html

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11." Source: Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).

"We live in an age and time where there are threats to our security and well being"

This has ALWAYS been the case. The enemies change that's all...

It's OVER. They got their next 4 years, and a clear path until at least the '06 elections. Pelosi and the other hardcore Dems can plot and plan all they want, but I have a feeling Dubya's gonna take these next two years, until he enters official "lame duck" status, to stick it straight up her and Harry Reid's wazoo if they don't play along.

All along, he's been inching Pelosi and that wing closer and closer to self-marginalization, and they've happily handed him the rope with which he'll try to hang them. She's not as smart as she thinks, and I'd put more hope in Reid and the more centrist Dems than anything Nancy P. will be able to accomplish. Besides, she's got Harold Ford scheming behind her back to pull her down, especially if she and the DNC can't pull a rabbit out of the hat for the '06 House elections. They've got to at least be able to win a couple of seats back from the Reps. If they don't, there'll be wholesale bloodletting on the Dem side.

Like I said, the Reps control every single lever of power in the Federal government. Let's see what they can with it.

K

I think it's broader than just gay marriage, or abortion, or any specific issue, and more about the general feeling people get from the candidate they support.

That is it.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

What do you mean by "It's OVER"?

We shouldn't discuss what our leaders are saying? We shouldn't examine the past?

I agree the babysitter analogy might not have been the best to use but I was trying to illustrate trust issues. I just did not trust what Kerry was saying.

As an aside, I did not vote for Bush in 2000 and I have never voted straight ticket in any election.

I am not against the democratic party. In this election I just did not feel comfortable with their candidate. Have you ever been in a situation where everything seemed right (no pun intended) but you still didn't buy in. That's is how Kerry left me feeling. I believe the demo's picked the wrong guy.

It's water under the bridge RB. We can't change where we are at the present time. Rehashing this particular subject isn't going to change anything.

What do you mean by "It's OVER"?

It's a play on the line that Nancy Pelosi used to describe Harold Ford's battle to be named House Minority Leader instead of her. She's too cocky and arrogant, and the Reps use her like a golem is used to frighten bad little Jewish children.

Ford's much more moderate and centrist-appearing, at least. Evan Bayh's another good 'un in the Senate. Why's it always gotta be the Pelosi and Boxer types with the Dems these days?

K